mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the conditional equivalence of phase retrieval algorithms

arXiv 2606.07257 ↗First posted 5 Jun 2026physics.optics cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Phase retrieval - recovering a complex-valued field from intensity measurements - is typically solved using variants of the Gerchberg-Saxton (GS) algorithm, understood as alternating projections between measurement planes. Meanwhile, modern computational imaging increasingly relies on gradient-based optimization and automatic differentiation. Here we show that these two approaches are mathematically identical: the GS magnitude replacement step is exactly a unit gradient descent step on an amplitude least-squares loss. This equivalence enables seamless integration of classical phase retrieval with differentiable physics pipelines. We further identify two complementary probabilistic interpretations of this equivalence: globally, the amplitude loss is the negative log-likelihood under Gaussian amplitude noise; locally, each projection step arises as a Bayesian update with the propagated field as prior. The local view provides qualitative guidance for relaxation in iterative phase retrieval.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2026.

Builds on

5 of 25 references.

References · 5

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2014Phase Retrieval via Wirtinger Flow: Theory and Algorithmscited by 125
  3. 2020Adorym: A multi-platform generic x-ray image reconstruction framework based on automatic differentiationcited by 7
  4. 2019Using Automatic Differentiation as a General Framework for Ptychographic Reconstructioncited by 5
  5. 2024Sparse Reconstruction of Wavefronts using an Over-Complete Phase Dictionarycited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.